When a Team Relocates, Does it Start a New Franchise?

This is a pretty random topic, but it's always kind of nagged at me. Why do sportscasters and writers include previous cities as part of a franchise? For instance, when talking about historical records, Winnipeg is always included as part of the Phoenix Coyotes, which makes the Coyotes seem to have been around much longer than in reality. Same goes for Minnesota and Dallas. A lot of the time players and front office go with the team, but once it gets a new name and gets a new identity, I feel like it shouldn't be included with the old team's stats.

Now, in my mind, when a team changes cities and changes names, it starts fresh. If the North Stars had won the Cup, you wouldn't include it with the Cups Dallas has won and so forth.

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

Well, that history has to go somewhere, and since the totality of the franchise is what's changing hands/locations, it makes more sense to leave it intact. Naturally, you have to specify when talking about the older team's accomplishments, but it would diminish the value of the franchise overall if the history was stripped away.

I agree with you VM1138. What really bothers me is what just happened with Atlanta... it becomes a huge tangled web. So back when there was the Winnipeg Jets. They fold shop and move their "franchise" to Phoenix and become the Coyotes. Now over the 10+ years the Coyotes have existed we hear sports analysts talking about how their franchise dates back to XXXX date as the Jets and blah blah blah. But then now you have the Thrashers who fold up and move to Winnipeg, but they are a "new franchise". Things like that REALLY just irriate me, more of and OCD thing probably. I know I am rambling on so basically what I am trying to say is I agree with you because when you have a franchise that moves from one place to another; Then you have another team that moves to a place that previously was a team that has relocated. Its weird, their history ties into two separate franchises and things just get messy. Which is why I hope the 'yotes don't move to Quebec. Then just imagine it... Winnipeg < Phoenix < Quebec. THen you have Atlanta < Winnipeg. Then you mix in a third with Quebec < Colorado. Its like a bunch of teams just breeding lol. Yuck.

Well see I'll play Jersey Devil's advocate and say as a Cleveland Browns fan you CAN keep your franchise records and colors intact. I know it's a different sport but not that different of the gripes of pro sports that cause teams to come and go. I think the Ravens (apart from being disgusting but I digress) could be called a true bastard franchise. The players but none of the records or history...

It's really not erasing history. As players, you still have all your records, but they were with another team. If you trade some players to another team, that doesn't mean that new team takes on your history.

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

I'm pretty sure part of it is because hockey teams are a type of business. Legally, when they are doing the paperwork, they are relocating the business rather than scrapping it and starting a new one. Plus they tend to keep many of their employees, coaches, GMs, players, during the move, so it makes more sense that way. And when you cite stats, the record for that particular business stands since before the move. After all, the make up of their roster after the move is a reflection of the business decisions of that team several years beforehand. This is much different than an expansion team who is starting fresh. One measure of a good hockey organization is how quickly they get to a cup since inception. That's why prior stats and decisions are considered.

For example, if Winnipeg had won the cup this year, it would not be fair to say that the franchise won the cup in it's first year of inception. Several people in that franchise worked hard to develop the roster and get the right coaches in place for years before the move. Winning the cup in your actual first year of inception is a much much harder feat. That would be unheard of for an expansion team.

Formerly known as The Nephilim.

QUOTE (Amberoonie)
Babs sure hurries himself into the presser, sits down, and f*cks up a bottle of water like no one in the room has had any for days.

For example, if Winnipeg had won the cup this year, it would not be fair to say that the franchise won the cup in it's first year of inception. Several people in that franchise worked hard to develop the roster and get the right coaches in place for years before the move. Winning the cup in your actual first year of inception is a much much harder feat. That would be unheard of for an expansion team.

True. The Dives won the Cup in '96, their first year in Colorado. However, it was really the Quebec team that won. Colorado picks and chooses what it acknowledges and what it doesn't regarding it's years in Quebec. They will talk about "franchise" records, etc., but don't honor the jerseys that were retired in Quebec.As a matter of fact, the reason the Dives have the big "A" on their jerseys it they wanted to honor their Canadian heritage, but no one told them it was spelled "eh", eh!